[stevebrot]

Does standard zoom imply that this will be the new kit lens?

No, this would be the replacement for the mediocre DA 17-70 and a direct competition to the Sigma 17-70 (c). Despite the narrow maximum aperture , the WR makes this an interesting lens. If the optical performance is impressive (meaning par or better than the Sigma), this would be a real winner in my book.


Steve

[Doundounba]

They showed a prototype Q macro lens last February and there's still no specs or firm availability date for that lens. When the K-01 was launched, they showed a prototype wide XS lens with recessed back element - a lens that never materialized at all. I understand that people are happy that prototypes are being shown - better that than nothing - but I don't think anyone should get their hopes up too high based on that. Only the DA 16-85mm is real, as far as I can tell, with specs and an actual ETA...

[boriscleto]

They showed a prototype Q macro lens last February and there's still no specs or firm availability date for that lens. When the K-01 was launched, they showed a prototype wide XS lens with recessed back element - a lens that never materialized at all. I understand that people are happy that prototypes are being shown - better that than nothing - but I don't think anyone should get their hopes up too high based on that. Only the DA 16-85mm is real, as far as I can tell, with specs and an actual ETA...

That lens was never on the roadmap. There was just a vague promise of investigating other XS lenses. The DA 560 showed up at a trade show as a prototype with no specs and no eta...

[bdery]

mediocre DA 17-70

I disagree that it's mediocre, by a far cry. It's just not good enough to compete with the perks of the Sigma (close focusing, faster aperture, etc).

[boriscleto]

I disagree that it's mediocre, by a far cry. It's just not good enough to compete with the perks of the Sigma (close focusing, faster aperture, etc).

And the fun of playing SDM roulette.

[starbase218]

I disagree that it's mediocre, by a far cry. It's just not good enough to compete with the perks of the Sigma (close focusing, faster aperture, etc).

You took the words right out of my mouth. The Sigma may be more versatile and faster at the wide end, but the DA 17-70 is far from mediocre, provided you have a good copy.

[gazonk]

I disagree that it's mediocre, by a far cry. It's just not good enough to compete with the perks of the Sigma (close focusing, faster aperture, etc).

I haven't tried it, but I notice it doesn't get the same amount of love as the 16-45. Speaking of the latter, if the new lens can match the rendering of the 16-45 but without its somewhat problematic mechanics, it's a winner for me. Especially if it makes a good portrait lens at the long end!

[stevebrot]

close focusing, faster aperture, etc)

To be fair, the current Sigma has not been tested against the DA 17-70. Its immediate predecessor was deemed essentially comparable in the review here at Pentax Forums with a slight node going to the Sigma. My comment was based on what I remembered of the photozone.de review of the DA 17-70 and the glowing review of the Sigma 17-70 (c) on this site. To quote the PF reviewer:

It's $100 cheaper than the Pentax 17-70mm, and also better optically, which leaves very little room for discussion.

Based on available reviews and pricing, the DA 17-70 was not even in my sights when I was shopping back in April. I don't know if any of that really makes the DA 17-70 mediocre or perhaps the Sigma 17-70 (c) is just simply excellent.


Steve

[filoxophy]

Would be nice if the 16-85 keeps f/4 through 70mm...probably just to 40mm or 50mm though, if I had to hazard a guess.

But really, as I posted somewhere around here, why didn't they just update the 17-70 with WR, HD, and DC? Hard to see the 16-85 and 17-70 coexisting.

[JinDesu]

If it were me, I'd be fine with the 16-85 replacing the 17-70 completely.

[D1N0]

Would be nice if the 16-85 keeps f/4 through 70mm...probably just to 40mm or 50mm though, if I had to hazard a guess.

But really, as I posted somewhere around here, why didn't they just update the 17-70 with WR, HD, and DC? Hard to see the 16-85 and 17-70 coexisting.

Typically these lenses are F4.5 by 35mm and F5 by 50. Above that F5.6

[aleonx3]

Would be nice if the 16-85 keeps f/4 through 70mm...probably just to 40mm or 50mm though, if I had to hazard a guess.

But really, as I posted somewhere around here, why didn't they just update the 17-70 with WR, HD, and DC? Hard to see the 16-85 and 17-70 coexisting.

I was thinking about that (17-70f4) too... As stated in the interview, the 16-85mm was intended to be an upgrade to the existing kit lens 18-55mm. So, it is not a direct replacement of 17-70mm; it would be nice if the 17-70 gets similar treatment (ie. WR, DC and HD coating), I will be interested.

---------- Post added 09-17-2014 at 05:27 PM ----------

Typically these lenses are F4.5 by 35mm and F5 by 50. Above that F5.6

Just as a reference, the DA 18-135mm lens are:
-f3.5 (18-21mm)
-f4.0 (22-28mm)
-f4.5 (29-68mm)
-f5.6 (69-135mm)

Notice there is a jump from 4.5 to 5.6..around 70mm focal length.

[starbase218]

To be fair, the current Sigma has not been tested against the DA 17-70. Its immediate predecessor was deemed essentially comparable in the review here at Pentax Forums with a slight node going to the Sigma. My comment was based on what I remembered of the photozone.de review of the DA 17-70 and the glowing review of the Sigma 17-70 (c) on this site. To quote the PF reviewer:



Based on available reviews and pricing, the DA 17-70 was not even in my sights when I was shopping back in April. I don't know if any of that really makes the DA 17-70 mediocre or perhaps the Sigma 17-70 (c) is just simply excellent.


Steve

Well, the Sigma is cheaper, which is to be expected since it's a third-party lens. And a lot of people seem to like it. But the Photozone review of the 17-70 was very favourable too. There's probably not a whole lot between them.

I have had two copies of the 17-70. The first one was not so good, but the second one has really grown on me. I think that at f/4, it's probably sharper than the 16-50 at f/2.8 for at least part of the zoom range.

[VisualDarkness]

The main problem with a floating aperture is that it makes things more difficult when shooting in manual mode due to tough to meter conditions. You can't really set the settings and just shoot since the aperture changes as you zoom. Not a huge minus for most people but kills it for some.

[Alizarine]

But really, as I posted somewhere around here, why didn't they just update the 17-70 with WR, HD, and DC? Hard to see the 16-85 and 17-70 coexisting.

Now that you said it, yeah, I wonder why too. It would've been easier, since it's been proven with the DA 55-300 that seals don't add up significant bulk to a lens to force a change in barrel design, and they would just replace the SDM with a DC motor.

I really hope this 16-85 outshines the 17-70 in every aspect except f/4 constant.